Flippin' through the Stargrunt timeline and something struck me on the force
sizes there.
2133: 3 settlements revolt, and to supress it are dispatched a parachute
regiment and a pair of demibrigades. Total, 5 BNs
2137: NAC base on Lancelot taken by a "Naval Assault Division",
2139: Flensberg attacked by 2 Guards divisions (named, but no type designation
in title which usually indicates Motorized Rifles), defended by 1 infantry
brigade and local forces.
2149: Lancelot defended by a "Combined Division". Possibly a mixed formation
combining light and heavy forces? Or a square division with two tank reg'ts
and 2 MRRs?
2179: Badley defended by "136th Gloucestershire Regiment", which if I
understand Brit designations correctly actually means the 136th Battalion,
Gloucestershire Regiment??
In all these cases, the largest force is pair of divisions and the average is
less than a division. For comparison, the US invaded Iraq with a heavy
division, part of an air assault division, a division of Marines, and an
airborne brigade. And wanted to use another heavy division but the Turks held
out for a larger bribe. And still the Bush Admin gets slammed by critics who
think there should have been more troops involved, but that's another debate
entirely. Let's stick to the 2100s.
My thought is that these force numbers respresent the huge difficulty of
transporting large armed forces across space. Extrapolation of the storage
capacity of FB1 transport ships from the figures given in more thrust shows
that building an assault ship capable of moving a full battalion task force
with sufficient supplies for 30 days would require an extremely large and
expensive ship.
Furthermore, the difference between long-service professionals armed
with the latest weaponry and non-weapon technology (C4ISR, mainly) is
such that even if you raised 10 divisions from the locals armed with
local-built stuff, it will wither like a leaf in a blast furnace if it
attempts to fight Regulars with total air supremacy/orbital supremacy.
See: Republican Guard in front of Baghdad. And COA superiority
(Close Orbit/Aerospace) is a precondition to even attempting to land
troops.
Goverment troops are present in brigade or division strength, but the locals
seem to be mostly useful as guerillas.
Far more practical is to use bulk haulers, transport the troops in cold sleep
(assuming there is a safe method of doing that in your universe) and send them
down after that battalion of assault troops has secured an LZ. Even then,
moving more than a division is extremely rare, near as I can tell. More than
the vehicles and
troops, the requirement for ammunition, food, fuel (for CFE/HMT
engined vehicles), etc is prohibitive. Never mind the difficulty in
requisitioning personnel replacements, major end items (replacement vehicles)
and so forth across the light years.
So there are two fights. One conventional fight against the real garrison
which is likely to be over quickly unless they take to the hills. And on a
colony planet, there are likely to be a lot of hills to take to. Apparently
that is part of the defense plans, complete with logistical caches. Because
otherwise the timelines just don't make sense. No military unit can haul
around six months of supplies, and shortly after the invasion they won't be
able to get any more from the factory, so to speak.
Then there is the fight to get logistical infrastructures in place.
Won't be enough to repair/replace the high-tech weaponry, but
food/water/fuel is a start. Ammo comes next. Gotta win hearts and
minds, because who wants to use ammo produced by slave labor? Here's the big
sociological question: Do the colonists care? I mean, is there a real big
attachment to the Mother Soil, or is it a case of shrugging and saying "so the
tax collectors have different accents. At least they pay well down at the
ammunition plant, and they didn't shoot the place up too badly overruning it."
Because if you have to import every round your troops fire, it is going to get
silly expensive quickly.
Then the counterinsurgency to clean out the holdouts. Here's more questions:
Do you want to bring in your own colonists and risk alienating those who were
already here? Do you trust the locals
enough to start arming them? These are going to be non-trivial
considerations. If you decide to "ethnically cleanse" do you shoot or
drive into exile? Off-planet or into the hinterlands? How much
autonomy do you give the local government?
<mega snip>
> My thought is that these force numbers respresent the huge
All this seems to make sense, except...if it's so expensive to ship 5000
troops and their supplies in 2190, how could anyone have been able to afford
to plant a colony in 2090?
One possibility is that there are two types of FTL, as we were discussing for
the VectorVerse. One is cheap and easy but has you arrive in a predictable
point which the natives can easily defend; the other is more difficult and
expensive but gives you a more flexible exit point. (As I recall, the
Posleen-verse uses this sort of arrangement).
> On 11/22/05, laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Coldsleep.
Besides which, colonies require much less logistical support than military
forces.
And civillian ships are far cheaper than military ones that have to defend
themselves.
Colonies are likely going to drop down to a 19th century level of technology
as far as what they can manufacture, early on. Military forces do not have
that option. They have to have the electronics, precision machining, vast
quantities of the products of heavy industry, thousands of barrels of POL
products, etc. Colonists can do without. You can colonize with the equivalent
of a Connestoga wagon or two per household. A military force with that level
of supply is soon useless.
> On 11/22/05, laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
One way to explain it would be to assume that at the time of initial
colonization, there was less likelihood of the colony ship being opposed
militarily, so the colony ships didn't have to be warships as
well -- in modern parlance, sort of the difference in cost between a
bulk freighter and a "Gator Freighter" (Assault Carrier).
> John Atkinson wrote:
> My thought is that these force numbers respresent the huge difficulty
To me, these numbers suggest rather small colonial populations (with a few
exceptions where a power had gone all-out to push the population up
fast,
eg. Albion). For real-world comparisons, compare the size of the forces
deployed in North America during the French and Indian War and the War of
1812 with the field armies in Europe in the same period - and relate the
force sizes to the sizes of the *populations* in North America and Europe at
the time.
> Furthermore, the difference between long-service professionals armed
*If* the regulars have total air/orbital supremacy, which is not at all
certain:
> And COA superiority (Close Orbit/Aerospace) is a precondition to even
Nope - or, rather, you only really need local COA superiority over your
chosen drop zone; everywhere else COA *parity* is enough to give the invasion
a chance to succeed. A planet is a very big place to defend, and unless the
defences are truly outrageously massive you're pretty much guaranteed to find
an unprotected spot to land in.
To use a real-world example, prior to the US invasion of Iraq in 1990/91
hadn't yet achieved air superiority when the first ground troops arrived in
Saudi Arabia - and they didn't need it either, because the troop
landings took place too far away for the Iraqis to intervene effectively. (In
the
event they didn't even try, of course.)
Or to use an SF example, the battle of Hoth: the Empire was unable to land
troops directly at the Rebel base due to the shield, so instead the Imperials
had to land well away from the base and move their assault forces overland.
The shield was a passive obstacle to the troop landings rather
than an active one, but the overall effect is very similar: the Empire did not
have air superiority over the combat zone. (Neither did the Rebels, of
course.)
Other than that I agree with your post :-/
Regards,
> On 11/22/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
That's a plausible explanation as well, although I don't see the two as being
mutually exclusive.
> >And COA superiority (Close Orbit/Aerospace) is a precondition to even
Also to be considered is the assumptions the given background makes about how
"balkanized" most colonized worlds will be. Quite frankly, I'm as disdainful
of whole planets belonging to one power as I am of
Star Wars-styled uniclimatic planets.
Especially if we accept Oerjan's points that A) Colonial Populations
(especially early on) are small and B) Planets are big places to
defend -- two points with which I'm in agreement.
Which means that if a given planet has colonies on it belonging to multiple
powers (likely), ESPECIALLY if it's 3 or more powers, and two of those powers
go to war, the other powers on the planet will have to be taken into
consideration by BOTH sides when fighting for
orbital/air superiority.
Having the background allow for or encourage the idea of multiple
population/political units on colony planets also makes it easier to
explain how large (even if it's only a battalion per side) end up on a DS
battlefield. I'm all for it.:)
J
John K. Lerchey Assistant Director for Incident Response Information Security
Office Carnegie Mellon University
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Brian B wrote:
> On 11/22/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> To me, these numbers suggest rather small colonial populations (with a
Entirely possible. I'd differentiate between places like Albion, which are de
facto "core" worlds from places where introducing a brigade of Legion troops
is going to make a real difference to the political situation.
> *If* the regulars have total air/orbital supremacy, which is not at
If I have starships capable of blasting other starships from
light-seconds away, then if I'm in low orbit your fighters are
screwed. If one side owns space, then they also own the atmosphere by
extension.
> >And COA superiority (Close Orbit/Aerospace) is a precondition to even
True. Although to sustain operations, you need air superiority.
Maybe not Desert Storm-style supremacy, but without air superiority
you leave yourself open to getting done like the Germans. At least if you are
operating small forces against large opposition forces.
> John Atkinson wrote:
This might be true if the enemy attempts to fight the war on the invaders
terms or if the enemy is fighing a war of extinction and is prepared to nuke
sites from orbit.
In a fight where you want to capture the territory all the defenders have to
do is let the attackers come into the city areas and a lot of the
technological advantages will be removed. Longer range weapons and tanks are
not much good in built up or rugged terrain.
The experience in the last 30 years suggests that lower tech forces with the
will to sustain casualties can make it uneconomic for the higher tech invader
to stay.
For a SF example the B5 universe has the Centauri arrive at the Narn homeworld
conqure the planet and then get driven off by the local resistance. A simliar
thing happened in the Star Trek universe.
I am also not convinced that space bourne weaponry would be that effective in
attacking ground targets or local space fighters. The planets atmoshpere will
attenuate energy beams and or cause heat blooms to block futher fire. Missiles
and kinetic projectiles suffer from reentry problems and would need special
shielding to penetrate the planetary atmosphere.
Also the starships will have problems staying on station in low orbit. They
will be travelling over the planetary surface at high speed and so can't "stay
on station" over a given point of the planetary surface.
While a planet might be a big place to defend there are likley to be only a
few viable places to land a big ground force. The place would need to be on or
near the equator and not water, mountains, heavy vegetation or other hazardous
terrain. On Earth the best place would probably somwehere in central africa.
If aliens did land in central africa it would be intersting to see the US and
European reactions and whther they would botherthemsleves about it or wait
till the alien task force gets to New York.
All of which are covered adequately in More Thrust.
Ortillery every 6 rounds in low orbit and non-ortillery isn't near as
effective for firesupport missions.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >*If* the regulars have total air/orbital supremacy, which is not at
That's not at all certain - again see Hoth. Planets can mount bigger
defences than spaceships can (not necessarily saying that they *do*, but
they *can*).
> >>And COA superiority (Close Orbit/Aerospace) is a precondition to
No. "Air superiority" means that *you* are effectively free to do what you
wish in the air while the enemy isn't; but (again except locally over your
bridgehead) all you really need to do to sustain operations is to deny the
*enemy* from using the air as *he* wishes regardless of whether or not
*you* can use it. With good enough ground-mounted AA defences (eg.
Hammer's
Slammers-style "anything that pokes over the horizon is toast" weaponry)
you can keep the enemy from flying without having a single aircraft of your
own.
Later,
> On 11/23/05, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> In a fight where you want to capture the territory all the defenders
People who try to stand and fight in any terrain against a modern professional
military get dead, quick, unless they are on a par with them in both training
and equipment. Urban is just another rough terrain, and both artillery and
armor have their roles to play.
> The experience in the last 30 years suggests that lower tech forces
Nonsense.
The experience of the last 30 years has unequivocably demonstrated
that low-tech forces are incapable of standing in front of high tech
forces in conventional battle. There are no counter-examples.
The method of the low-tech defender is that of guerilla warfare.
Guerilla warfare requires sanctuary and support both internal and external.
> For a SF example the B5 universe has the Centauri arrive at the Narn
The Star Trek universe is about as unrealistic as possible, from a military
standpoint. The B5 example is also fictional.
> I am also not convinced that space bourne weaponry would be that
If you can see it, you can kill it. Surviving an assault with orbital fire
support will depend on one of three factors.
Getting danger close to the enemy so that he can't use his fire support. Of
course, then he can kill you direct fire. It's an expensive tactic. Ask the
Vietnamese.
Getting close enough to an objective important enough that the fire support
won't be used for fear of collateral damage.
Getting into terrain/foliage so dense that it partially or totally
defeats the orbital sensors. And if you are doing that, you are 1)dispersed
and 2)probably not close to the vital objectives on your planet.
The point of orbital fire support, like air support, is not that it is
a cure-all. It is part of a combined arms dilemma. The point of
combined arms is to provide the enemy with a dilemma so that any solution to
one part of it increases his vulnerability to the other part.
If Napoleonic infantry forms square to defend against cavalry, they are better
artillery targets.
Machine guns force you to keep your head down and under cover so that the men
with rifles can maneuver to kill you at close quarters.
If you disperse and erect camoflage systems to defeat air/space
support, then the ground forces rolling in will pick you off in penny
packets--defeat in detail. If you concentrate to defeat the ground
forces, you have provided a wonderful target for the air.
This was forgotten in Kosovo when air power was used as a panacea
which was supposed to be all-singing and all-dancing. Didn't quite
work out that way because there was not even a credible threat of a ground
attack to force the Serbian Army to concentrate to fight battles or to
maneuver using easily interdicted roads.
> Also the starships will have problems staying on station in low orbit.
They will be travelling over the planetary surface at high speed and so can't
"stay on station" over a given point of the planetary surface.
That's why you have multiple small gunboats doing support rather than One Big
Ship.
> While a planet might be a big place to defend there are likley to be
On or near the equator? Why?
Besides which, I don't need a truly huge area to stage out a single division.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 11/23/05, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> In the Falklands battles in the 80s between England and Argentinia.
The
> invading troops were transported by cruise liners, because Brtian did
As a result, they had to drop off on a worthless part of that rock and walk to
the object. Because of the difficulty of logistical support, there was
practically no armored support availible.
Given the UK's ability to project force, that war is not a bad metaphor for a
possible planetary invasion scenario.
> If the invaders are air moble, as is likely they can bounce around the
I'd think they'd have to be at least partially air mobile, given that they had
to get from orbit to dirtside somehow.:)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMuch of this
depends on weapons doesn't it? I can't count the number of
military sci-fi stories where air power has been written out of the
equation. Hammers Slammers and the Bolo books come to mind. One big planetary
defense weapon in a city could make Ortillery useless.
As for your low-tech high-tech comparison the combat technology in the
GZG universe hasn't progressed all that much. I can see the tech edge being
insignificant. OTH the training edge is going to be huge. I don't know about
you but I would place my money on a modern special forces unit with WWII
weaponry over militia with the latest and greatest.
Roger Books
> On 11/23/05, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >In the Falklands battles in the 80s between England and Argentinia.
The
> >invading troops were transported by cruise liners, because Brtian did
Which is pretty much what the US did in Iraq too - in spite of your
quite considerable troop transport capabilities, you had to drop off in a
rather useless part of the desert before you could move to the places you
really wanted to be... and quite a lot of your equipment and supplies were
carried by commercial freighters. (Not sure about the troops themselves,
though.)
And, of course, it is *exactly* what the Imperial troops did on Hoth <g>
> Because of the difficulty of logistical support,
The lack of armoured support in the Falklands had at least as much to do
with the terrain as with the logistics. Even if the Brits had been able to get
MBTs ashore, they wouldn't have been able to drive very far without running
major risks of bogging down. The light vehicles they did use were
far better suited to the terrain - and since the Argies didn't have
anything heavier to oppose them with, they were sufficient to do the job.
Regards,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> If you can see it, you can kill it. Surviving an assault with orbital
Let's pray that your orbital sensors are better at finding targets than the US
was in Iraq in 2003. Eg. on April 3rd, when a US batallion en route to
Baghdad was attacked by a concentrated Iraqi brigade (70-100 armoured
vehicles of various types, and 8-10,000 infantry) that no-one on the US
side had a clue was there at all... the US troops defeated the attack, but
the grunts weren't very happy with their intel people afterwards :-/
> If you disperse and erect camoflage systems to defeat air/space
Don't bet your life on the "penny packets" theory, John - particularly
not if the enemy is better trained than the Iraqis were in 2003, so they
actually manage to do something once they get into combat. The US forces
were very lucky in that respect - even when Iraqi tanks had clear flank
shots at Bradleys ranges under a mile, they didn't hit anything.
> >Also the starships will have problems staying on station in low
Small gunboats are a lot more vulnerable to anything the defenders might
hit back with, though - particularly if you disperse them to cover
larger areas.
Regards,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 11/23/05 8:10:31 AM Central Standard Time,
> roger.books@gmail.com writes:
Much of this depends on weapons doesn't it? I can't count the number of
military sci-fi stories where air power has been written out of the
equation.
Glenn: Every grunts dream since Twilight 2000...
Hammers Slammers and the Bolo books come to mind.
Glenn: Nice presupposition. For the treadheads that would be good but in the
Tuffleyverse I suspect it's not likely. I think I'd go for some nice Air to
Mud movers even before VTOL myself. Arty, AFVs, Infantry, Engineers,
Aerospace, even VTOL - they all have a place in the combined arms team.
One big planetary defense weapon in a city could make Ortillery useless.
Glenn: Perhaps.
As for your low-tech high-tech comparison the combat technology in the
GZG universe hasn't progressed all that much. I can see the tech edge being
insignificant. OTH the training edge is going to be huge. I don't know about
you but I would place my money on a modern special forces unit with WWII
weaponry over militia with the latest and greatest.
Roger Books
<snip>
I think that is relative to missions of the two organizations, size and
relative tech/training.
A Platoon of Modern SF forces could harass the heck out of a division of
well trained/combat experienced (say last 5 years) troops like a
combined arms
Militia/Reserve/National Guard/etc. in the 'wilds' but deny a city to
them? No.
Block a road/pass/river crossing for a period of time? Yes, at risk of
disintegrating the unit defending. Hold it for a week? Highly
Unlikely.
Meet them in a 'meeting engagement' (not terribly common in real life but war
game favorite scenario for many) type battle? I would hope not for the
Platoon's sake.
And in game terms, I would hope that a larger Low tech "Blue and Green" HVC
tracked force with Arty, VTOL and Aerospace support (much less Vacuum based
support) would brush the "Orange or even Red" level Platoon aside in anything
static. No matter how fast your Grav vehicles are they can't outrun aerospace
so bring an AA "edge" if the invaders bring anything even
semi-modern
(Warthogs anyone?) to the table.
> On 11/23/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> Which is pretty much what the US did in Iraq too - in spite of your
That had to do with the physical geography. We were limited to coastlines
since no one has invented orbital assault craft.:)
> And, of course, it is *exactly* what the Imperial troops did on Hoth
Sure. However, the defenses on Hoth, while apparently
near-invulnerable to bombardment, covered such a limited area that in
the space of a few hours from entering the system, the Imperials
managed to land a large force (brigade-sized? More?) and lumber at
the speed of an AT-AT to within line of sight of the shield generator.
At which point the Rebels were screwed. Not precisely the best planetary
defense plan if you mean to hold the system. I'm still unclear on how, other
than handwaving, the Rebels managed to evacuate the planet coming from a known
location on the surface. I'd have been far more focused on throwing up an
airtight blockade than on assaulting a base that was being evacuated. Neither
Vader nor George Lucas are the best tacticians, though.
> >Because of the difficulty of logistical support,
Eh, even a few more trucks, never mind some more helicopters, would have been
highly appreciated. But a lot of the advantages of the
British Army were nullified by inability to put a serious armor/mech
force on the ground. It came down to simply training. Fortunately, the Brits
were very good and the Argies very bad in that department.
> On 11/23/05, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
If your universe runs to such things, invasion of a defended planet is
impossible anyway.
> As for your low-tech high-tech comparison the combat technology in the
Technology in the GZGverse as depicted in the current incarnation of
DSII is mid-1970s or earlier.
> insignificant. OTH the training edge is going to be huge. I don't
Depends on what you are trying to do.
For one-on-one, true.
For armored division vs. armored division, basic trainees in Abrams vs. the
elite in Shermans is going to be a different story.
And the advantage of modern forces isn't merely the weapons, it is the C4ISR
capabilities.
> On 11/23/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> Let's pray that your orbital sensors are better at finding targets
No system is either perfect nor risk-free.
Even had the brigade defeated the BN (highly unlikely proposition), would it
have changed the campaign? Only through political effects.
And that's something else--without lightspeed campaigns, many of these
conflicts will be like wars of the Victorian period. Or earlier. Because the
politicians and media weenies won't be able to influence the situation until
it is too late. Once the operation has started,
the local commander will have near-consular powers until he gets
dispatches with updated instructions. In a month or more. By which time, he
may have effectivley conquered the planet. He is unlikely to give it back.
> >If you disperse and erect camoflage systems to defeat air/space
Oddly enough, I was planning to in 2003.:) Damn Turks.
I didn't say it was risk-free. I just said that it will prevail. And
fairly rapidly. And I do assume that if sensor technology has advanced to the
point that you can target small starships over thousands of kilometers with
some assurance of a hit, then that represents some advance.
> > >Also the starships will have problems staying on station in low
I'm presuming that any objections to the effectiveness of orbital support are,
if anything, greater obstacles to the effectiveness of
planetary-based weaponry. Atmospheres are not composed of one-way
glass.
If weaponry and sensor technology is such that orbital fire is highly precise
and accurate then the planetary defense installations will have to be
defeated, such a defeat will be costly, but a defeat of the planetary defense
installations is a prerequisite to effective invasion. You have to open a hole
in the coverage safe enough for transports, large enough for a lot of them,
and located in an area which is capable of supporting those transports. It
also has to be located in the effective striking radius of the units you are
landing. If a US Army force fighting from Kuwait to Baghdad feels the
logistical strain, how much worse would it be to try to march from "Central
Africa" (as one poster suggested) all the way to Central Europe? With a much
larger gap between the home base and the theater logistical base? And how much
time do they think they will have before their superiors want to know what the
hell is going on?
If orbital bombardment is defeated by heat plumes and so forth, then
orbital defense is simillarly difficult. I'm not sure which set of
assumptions you wish to use.
When I made my comments about equatorial landing zones I made the assumption
that the landing craft would be a more advanced version of the space shuttle.
If the landing craft have full antigrav then they could land straight down.
If you have shuttles that fly like aircraft they might well need long landing
spaces to set down.
I also assumed it would be easier for the blocading fleet to manouvre into
eqatorial orbits for assault landings because its easier to land and take off
into orbit from the equator rather than the polar regions.
The last 50 years of earth history has been full of advanced nations losing
wars to local militia. The Europeans all lost their colonial empires to local
revolts. Some were managed in semi peaceful transitions but others were
violent rebellions. Yet they had the technology and the economics to suppport
their army if they wanted to. The Americans suffered a similar reverse in
Vietnam as did the French.
I agree that campaigns set in the FT universe won't suffer from the CNN effect
of recent conflicts and the armchair quarterbacking of politicians.
I can see the same kind of politics going into outfitting the invasion fleet
though. The "there's only a bunch of half assed mountain boys" you won't need
any armoured vehicles or aerospace fighters.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >Let's pray that your orbital sensors are better at finding targets
If the Iraqis had won that particular battle, the southern pincer against
Baghdad would've been delayed for at least a day or two due to the river
crossing being blocked. Wouldn't have had any major effect on the campaign as
a whole of course, but it'd still have been noticable.
But my point here is that the US intelligence and recon systems, in spite
of all their awesome high-tech gadgets, managed to completely miss an
entire concentrated *armoured brigade* that was sitting right in the path of
the advancing column of US troops (and even seems to have manoeuvred a bit
against the US troops). That's a pretty big "penny packet". If the Iraqis
could hide an entire armoured brigade right under the nose of the
advancing invading troops without it being discovered until it choose to
attack, more competent defenders would most likely be able to do it too.
Sure, sensor technology will advance a lot further from where it is now
-
but so will the tricks used to fool said sensors.
> >>>Also the starships will have problems staying on station in low
Even assuming that the atmosphere causes any major difficulties (which I
didn't, BTW - you seem to be confusing me with your namesake John
(Tailby) here), planets can mount much bigger weapons than starships can. With
enough power, you can punch through even the atmosphere.
However, I didn't say anything about planet-based weapons above (again
you're confusing me with your namesake). There are other things that the
defenders might use to get at the ortillery vessels - remnant space
forces
lurking elsewhere in the system, ground-based fighters or hidden missile
launchers which don't reveal themselves until the ortillery gets close enough
to hit, etc. Even if you keep your entire fleet in low orbit to protect the
ortillery platforms from such threats, a big ortillery platform is more
capable of surviving such attacks than multiple small gunboats are.
(You also ignore the most likely mechanism used to hit ships in deep space,
namely using a shotgun technique: if you fire a large enough number of shots
through the volume of space the target could be in when the shots arrive,
you're fairly likely to hit with at least one or two of those shots.
Unfortunately, if you try that approach on a planetary target you're likely to
wipe out not just the defending troops but also the civilian population, any
infrastructure in the area, and any of your own troops that happen to be near
the intended target...)
> If weaponry and sensor technology is such that orbital fire is highly
And in this stage too the "One Big Ship" ortillery platform will be more
survivable - and thus more effective - than the "multiple small
gunboats"
you advocated above :-/
Regards,
> On 11/24/05, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
They'd have to be to have any value. You'd also have to land somewhere useful.
Land in the "Central Africa" equivalent on a colony with 125,000 inhabitants
clustered in the Italy equivalent, and you're wasting your time. By the time
you road march the whole way, you've lost a lot of troops to environmental
factors, much of your equipment has been lost to wear and tear and accidents,
and you'll have wasted a lot of time as well.
> If you have shuttles that fly like aircraft they might well need long
Which makes them incapable of fulfilling the role of landing craft.:)
> The last 50 years of earth history has been full of advanced nations
There has not been a case in the last 50 years of a major power's army
suffering a defeat in a conventional battle. Political decisions not to
continue fighting a counter insurgency have been made. But every time local
forces stand and fight, they die like flies.
I'm very carefully seperating conventional warfare and insurgency. My
model is an initial phase of high-intensity conflict to secure the
major population centers and defeat the garrison, thus assuming
effective control of the colony. Then there is the counter-insurgency
phase. Which I'm not going to worry overmuch about because it makes
for some piss-poor wargaming scenarios.
To properly capture the flavor of guerilla warfare, you need to run 30
scenarios where the government forces run up and down the road and
cordon-and-search and so on and NOTHING HAPPENS.
Then, on the 31st scenario, throw in a roadside bomb or some suicide car
bomber or some joker in the village who decides to die for Allah.
Then 30 more scenarios where nothing happens.
> I agree that campaigns set in the FT universe won't suffer from the
That would be possible.
> On 11/23/05, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
I remember reading, a while back, a Boer War scenario that basically did this.
The British player started out at the short end of a long table full of
terrain, with a few Boer scouts visible on the crest of a hill a little ways
off, and reports from higher command of a larger Boer force "somewhere out
there" that he had to run down.
Except that there was no larger Boer force, and the British forces just
marched the length of the map, quivering. There was some mechanism for "your
scouts report X" to keep the British going, but no actual Boer forces ever on
the table.
It struck me as amusing, and evil, and likely to irritate players. <grin>
> On 11/24/05, Brian Burger <blurdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
<grin>
Perfectly realistic. That's what make guerillas dangerous to the individual
soldier. After 30 patrols, there's a tendency to become "complacent and
lackadasical" (to quote one of my SLs from Iraq). An alert soldier who knows
the shit is going down in a serious way is going to eat a pack of guerillas
for breakfast. It's the hidden dangers that get you.
> - who has just realized that gmail contains no mechanism for changing
Yes, it does. "Edit subject" link at the top of the email.
> >
As I understand it, the original British plans were to move their infantry
units using air mobility to preposition for battles - but they ended up
walking because most all of their helicopter "eggs" were in the Atlantic
Conveyor "basket" and sank with the ship.
Armour/Mech forces would have been fairly useless in the terrain.
Luckily
for the British, they've been good at light-infantry for centuries. The
equipment the British had was generally on par with what the Argentinians had
(I've read more than one account that said the Argentineans had better night
vision equipment, for example). So, as Jon points out, it came down to
training (and esprit de corps, professionalism, dedication, leadership).
> On 11/25/05, james mitchell <tagalong@sa.chariot.net.au> wrote:
True--but you have to be within striking distance of some objective
worth taking. Dropping a month's road march from your objective is pointless.
> and as for insurgent type games, remember that a 15yr with a 1000
Easier said then done. Also don't forget that tanks don't travel alone.
or his mate with a sniper rifle can tie
> up a company of troops for a couple of hours game of tag, I think that
What you read in a book somewhere, I've experienced.
Usual result--dead gunman. They can be triangulated well enough to
find them. And killing armored soldiers is easier said than done. It can be
done, but not easily nor reliably. Especially if their ROE allows them to
return fire when "positively identified". When it is all said and done,
positive ID is in the eye of the leader on the ground. As long as you have an
AK to go with the corpse, it's all good.
Games are possible with COIN scenarios. But they are lacking the main
advantage of the insurgent--troops not paying 100% attention because
they have done this over and over and over with no contact. It also requires a
somewhat unrealistic concentration of insurgent assets.
When a force comes into a town for cordon-and-search, the insurgents
don't know about it ahead of time. They are improvising on the fly, while the
Government troops have a plan and the leadership has done rehearsals. They
have discussed what the contingency plans are. And they bring enough force to
the table to make the eventual outcome pretty much a given. If not, they fall
back a bit, and scream for air support. A pair of Apaches takes the heart out
of most insurgents, and kills the rest.
Most games, however, would come down to a couple of dice rolls. Basically,
does anyone notice anything wrong before the attack, does the IED actually go
off, where precisely is it in relation to the vehicle, and then a dice roll
vs. the gunner's armor. Followed by a
react-to-IED drill that won't take long. And if the initiator is
nearby and the drill is done correctly, you've got one or two terrorists
stuffed and cuffed. If not, that's about it except for medevac and vehicle
recovery.
> comes down to what a person wants in his games and some of the
Yeah, it's a pain if you've experienced it. But given a platoon and a
villiage, I know my response.
Cordon it off, request some support, and go house by house. I've done it, a
few times with quite good results.
A friend named Scott MacGregor boldly ran a game with no opposing forces on
the table at GenCon. It was in Charlie Company, and he had the players
sweating. Ideally, you'd see them bored then have trouble jump out, but tense
in the face of no danger was cool too.
John Tailby wrote on 11/23/2005 06:19:44 PM:
> When I made my comments about equatorial landing zones I
The planet assault campaign map I showed Nyrath was a series of orbits, with
the closest, 'insertion' circle as geosync, and was over the equator. I did
this to simplify game mechanics, but PS(ocialogical)B'd it as strict
operational ROE's(more appropriate term?). Approaching combatant craft, though
I assumed all space vehicles for safety issues, were required to maintain
equitorial orbits to reduce collateral damage.
Nicely, this gave me a two dimensional map. ;->=
Note, this was assumed to be within the Tufflyverse implied stepped level of
violence; core worlds, no war, inner colonies for the map above, 'gentlemen's
conflicts', and outer colonies, 'wild west'.
Winchell, the few attempts at populating the world map had an undeveloped
equatorial strip, that was assumed left for safe 'landing'.
The_Beast
> On 11/24/05, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> Winchell, the few attempts at populating the world map had an
How far from the equatorial strip to the main settlements? I have presumed
that, as is the case with sea ports, star ports would be within easy reach of
major population centers. For economic reasons. It's hard to move goods
thousands of Ks to a population center to sell them.
Good point!
I know I was thinking fairly advanced colonies would tend to have most
manufacturing facilities, relatively automated, close to the 'band'.
Settlements would be close, but not integrated. Likewise, I assumed the
colonies were mostly self-supporting, that the amount of goods going out
and coming in relatively small.
Lastly, I thought the band was for approach, while the ports themselves closer
to the edges.
I'll have to admit it was not fully formed in my mind. Vague, actually. I'll
chew on it some more.
The_Beast
John Atkinson wrote on 11/24/2005 10:02:56 AM:
> On 11/24/05, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> I know I was thinking fairly advanced colonies would tend to have
Why not? Unless your landing system is *highly* toxic/radioactive, or
otherwise demands a huge amount of space, cities will grow up surrounding or
adjacent to the spaceport.
Laserlight wrote on 11/24/2005 10:29:55 AM:
> > I know I was thinking fairly advanced colonies would tend to have
OR is highly unreliable... ;->=
Like I said, have to cogitate more. I'll give up highly bogus reasons, but
not the map/campaign itself.
However, one point of clarification: I never meant the 'band' had to be empty,
just not highly developed.
You know, now that I think about it, it could be a requirement of the spacing
guild. After the experience of housing developement around old
Terran airports, and potentially dangerous re-routing of approaches,
they
may force colonies to put it in their by-laws. ;->=
The_Beast
> John Atkinson wrote:
> On 11/23/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
If all that matters had been physical geography, you could've landed directly
at Basra and saved yourselves a lot of marching through the desert. If the
Iraqi defences there were unable to interfere, why didn't
you do that? :-)
> >And, of course, it is *exactly* what the Imperial troops did on Hoth
Which is basically what the UK did in the Falklands too - or, for that
matter, what the US did in Iraq.
> At which point the Rebels were screwed. Not precisely the best
By having a planet-based weapons battery powerful enough to at least
temporarily disable a Star Destroyer with a single hit clear the
would-be
blockading units out of the way. (We only see one SD disabled in this way
on-screen, but since the gun kept firing throughout the evacuation it is
probably safe to assume that Vader tried to close the gap thus opened.)
> >>Because of the difficulty of logistical support,
You were talking about ARMOURED support above. Generally speaking, trucks
and helos aren't considered to be "armoured support" - although I've
noticed that the US Army now calls a platoon of 4xM1114 armoured HumVees a
"motorized tank platoon", so maybe the requirements to count as "armoured" are
being softened nowadays <g>
Like I said, even if the Brits had been able to put a serious armoured force
on the Falklands they would've had severe difficulties to use them
-
unless they by some miracle had managed to land them within firing range of
Port Stanley... but I don't think that even the US would've been able to
pull *that* off :-/
Regards,
> On 11/24/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> But my point here is that the US intelligence and recon systems, in
Shit happens. If you wait for perfection you won't ever do anything. A single
brigade managing it out of 22 divisions is an acceptable margin of error.
> (You also ignore the most likely mechanism used to hit ships in deep
Planetary targets, especially if mounting considerably heavier weaponry than
typical on starships, are likely to be immobile. Making them much easier
targets.
> And in this stage too the "One Big Ship" ortillery platform will be
Perhaps a mixed force might be better--a couple big platforms for
dropping crowbars on planetary defense installations, maybe call them Orbital
Monitors or something, and smaller gunboats to provide
round-the-clock coverage to tactical units.
> On 11/24/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> >That had to do with the physical geography.
Because the port at Basra was not conducive to being a proper logistical base
until it was secure. There were secure ports available within a short march of
the Iraqi border. On a colony planet this is unlikely to be the case.
The nearest analogy might be Normandy, where the beaches were selected for
their physical characteristics, and a temporary port was erected. The plan
didn't call for it to be a main logistical hub as long as it was, only the
stubborn German defenses forced it to be used longer than the plan intended.
> >At which point the Rebels were screwed. Not precisely the best
Couldn't fighters have maneuvered in to smash the damn things? I doubt the ion
cannon would have been able to hit them. Oh, well. Nuance.
In my opinion, planetary defenses will be about as common as large coastal
fortresses were in European colonial posessions in the Americas. In other
words, the major ports and that is about it. And not even a lot of them.
> > >>Because of the difficulty of logistical support,
Oerjan, dammit, do you need it spelled out in words of one syllable? I was
conceeding that point.
While maintaining that transportation difficulties still limited the British
forces to a fraction of the effectiveness they would have had with a more
robust logistical system.
> Like I said, even if the Brits had been able to put a serious armoured
I think after an American carrier group or two worked over the Argentinian
Navy and Air Force, we would have done precisely as we pleased. We also would
have had more than a handful of helos, and air assaulted all over the place.
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> You were talking about ARMOURED support above. Generally speaking,
> I've noticed that the US Army now calls a platoon of 4xM1114 armoured
> as "armoured" are being softened nowadays <g>
A "motorized tank platoon"? Now I've heard everything.Well, if adding HumVees
to a leg unit makes them motorized then I suppose using them in an armor role
makes the tank platoon motorized too.
But if they can stand up to heavy MG fire, then against anything but real
tanks they can do the armor job. It makes my brain hurt, but I think this is
actually pretty clever.
> On 11/24/05, Michael Llaneza <maserati@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> A "motorized tank platoon" ? Now I've heard everything.Well, if adding
That's the intention.
Short version:
Tanks are not as useful in most counter-insurgency missions. But you
want armored units there because if you need tanks, you need them very, very,
badly. See: Battle of the Black Sea Marketplace, Mogadishu AKA Day of the
Rangers.
Further, tankers in this role can hold down a sector, perhaps not as
well as infantry but tolerably well. Effectively, they are dual-armed
cavalry, light or heavy as the situation requires it.
> But if they can stand up to heavy MG fire, then against anything but
Against some jackass with an command-detonated 122mm shell and an AK,
they work just fine.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>That had to do with the physical geography.
"Short march" in this case means "several days along a single MSR". Better
than half a planet away, granted :-/
Yes, D-day is a very good analogy for most planetary invasions on
entirely hostile planets.
> >>At which point the Rebels were screwed. Not precisely the best
If by "the damn things" you mean the evactuation transports: not until they
had dealt with each transport's escorting force of Rebel fighters.
If you mean "why didn't the quite numerous Rebel fighters grab the opportunity
to smash the damn crippled Star Destroyers": no, because they
were busy escorting the evacuation transports :-/
> In my opinion, planetary defenses will be about as common as large
And since those major ports are very likely to be located in close vicinity of
the very colonies the invaders want to take over, most of those planetary
defences are quite well placed to force the invaders to land
somewhere else and keep would-be bombardment vessels at arms distance.
> >>>>Because of the difficulty of logistical support,
You were? Ah well, if you say so :-/ To me it looked exactly like you
were moving the goalposts, changing the subject from armoured vehicles to
softskins <shrug> Better use single-syllable words next time, then.
> >Like I said, even if the Brits had been able to put a serious
If having an American carrier group or two working the defenders over
would've allowed you to land heavy equipment directly into an enemy-held
harbour (which Port Stanley was), didn't you do precisely that in Basra a
couple years ago? After all, you had not only a carrier group or two in
the Gulf working the Iraqi forces over, but a major USAF force as well; and
the Iraqi navy and air force showed far less fighting spirit in 2003 than
their Argentinian counterparts did in 1982. (Particularly the Argentinian Air
Force, of course.)
Answer: because you (and more importantly, the US high brass) know as well
as I do that trying to land troops directly into an enemy-held harbour
is madness. (Yes, MacArthur did it at Inchon, but I'd rate him as being quite
mad :-/ ) The US and UK troops attacking Iraq landed elsewhere and
attacked overland, and you would've done exactly the same in the Falklands too
if
you had been the ones fighting that war.
> We also would have had more than a handful of helos, and air
All over the place except within LOS of the Argies, since IIRC they had a fair
amount of MANPADS available. (As it was the Brits used a fair amount of helo
transport too, eg. down to Goose Green and back.)
Regards,
> The last 50 years of earth history has been full of advanced nations
> economics to suppport their army if they wanted to. The Americans
That's a really broad simplistic brush you're using to painting over the
period of decolonialization. The European nations "lost" their colonial
empires to a wide, wide range of issues. One big influence on the British,
for example, was the sheer cost - they just plain couldn't afford to
keep up with the costs of empire with their economy destroyed by WWII and the
years needed to build back up again (on top of the costs of fighting the
cold war). Imperatives changed - the Cold War became the big focus.
The idea of fighting through WWII for "freedom and democracy" and then
maintaining empires didn't sit well with large portions of the public in
many countries. There were all kinds of newly emerged states with a lot of
geopolitical pull that used their influence in ways that they European
imperial states hadn't had to face before (look up the
Malaysian/Malayan/Borneo/Indonesian conflict and in particular what the
Indonesians were trying to do - the British and Commonwealth forces were
*not* simply fighting against "local militia"). There was the influence of the
USA and the Soviets on their "client" states (the USA wanted to see the end of
the Imperial system... as did the Soviets). Etc etc etc etc etc.
I would say that the last 50 years of earth history has seen very, very few
examples of advanced nations losing wars *simply* to local militia. It was
much more complicated than that. And the last *30* years have seen few
examples of advanced nations losing anything to local militia.
"...full of advanced nations losing wars to local milita" is pretty loaded
- the Americans in Vietnam never lost a major encounter on the
battlefield with any of the opposing forces (and battles, after all, are what
we're
talking about here - these are wargames, not "geopolitical games" or
"media and public opinion back home" games) and didn't lose all that many
lesser encounters either, when it comes down to it. Sure, they lost the
overall conflict, but much of that had to do with US domestic politics as much
as anything that happened militarily: The US press painted a picture of the
war that was very different from what the military leaders knew what was
going on, and public opinion made a big difference... (Tet being painted as
a "loss" for the Americans, for example - hence the Pentagon's desire
for the past 30 years to control press access to conflicts... they knew how
badly they were beaten by the US press and how drastic the effects of the
press were on the overall military outcome - and they don't want to see
it happen again).
(For the record, I'm not saying that the US loss in Vietnam was the result of
the US press. My point is that it was a lot more complicated that simply
saying they were beaten by local militia).
Anyway, bringing this back to the point at hand, Jon A. is quite right when he
points out that playing an insurgency could be dead dull as a tabletop
miniatures game - if you assume the same sort of paradyme we see
currently in Iraq. As the US is showing in Iraq, "local militia" going up
against an advanced nation lose. Lose consistently, and lose overwhelmingly.
The terrorists have resorted largely to blowing up their countrymen because
attacking the American troops in open battle is a losing proposition. So,
unless your "local militia" are really, really well trained, there isn't a
game. You can certainly *write* it any way you like, of course - it's
your universe. And really well trained and well equipped "local militia"
presupposes a colony with substantial resources - and so the fight is
against a regular army, not a local militia...
Now if you have something a bit less "modern" - say, like the
aforementioned British conflict with Indonesia back in the '60's, then the
"local militia vs. advanced forces" has a bit more potential. Much of the
fighting there was small groups of British (or other Commonwealth forces
-
lots of Gurkhas and Australians and others) light infantry getting into short,
sharp fights with small groups of "insurgents" (who were, in large part,
Indonesian regulars). That makes for much more interesting wargaming
- and well suits the style of play in Stargrunt (with a platoon or two
per side).
Jon A. seems to be basing much of his opinion on the military capability of
insurgents on the current situation in Iraq. That isn't necessarily going to
be the only model to use, however. One could postulate a much closer
balance of capabilities between the combatants. Think Foreign Legion
fighting in Chad, for example - sure, the Legion is better, but there
aren't all that many of them and they don't have a large supply of the very
best stuff simply because of logistical reasons - the high-tech gear
requires massive logistical support, and either the attacking power
*can't*
provide the support (they're busy elsewhere - it's a big war), or
*won't*
for political reasons. So, the 123rd Battalion battle group of the Royal
New Anglian Light Infantry gets dumped with a few months of supplies onto a
FSE outpost colony with the objective of tieing things up for a while. They're
up against several companies of the Legion and a bunch of
militia. It is a far-flung outpost colony, so they can't afford heavy
logistical support; so a "light" formation is sent which has lower support
requirements - they march on foot, etc. That kind of thing can make
for interesting battles.
In my view, it isn't realistic to think that every planetary assault will be
by forces that have the qualitative (and logistical) edge the way the US does
over the Iraqi forces (either now or back in 2003). If planetary assaults were
going to always be that starkly defined, then I think it might go something
like this: Either a colony is big enough and wealthy enough to have first rate
troops (full time locals or garrison of off planet regulars), in which case it
is very, very difficult to assault, or they lose against a modern invader.
That doesn't make for fun gaming.
Anyway, enough of my rambling.
> On 11/24/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> >Couldn't fighters have maneuvered in to smash the damn things?
Two, count 'em two fighters. If I swarm it with 2 dozen fighters (check the
published fighter complements of a Star Destroyer) then I doubt a pair of
escorts could have done much.
> >In my opinion, planetary defenses will be about as common as large
Depends on the population density of the colonies. I mean, there's a huge
difference between a population of a half a million concentrated into a space
the size of Sicily and a hundred thousand scattered in concentrations across a
space the size of France. Either of which are possible settlement densities,
depending on the level of transportation infrastructure. If your colony is
small enough (geographically) to fit under the umbrella of a single planetary
defense emplacement that is one thing. If it is a scattering of
resource-extration settlements scattered over a continent and tied
together by a system of suborbital shuttlecraft, that is another.
Personally, I think the most interesting scenarios arise in mid-level
colonies. Where there is a planetary defense site covering the main star port,
but not emplacements everywhere, yet the colony has started to spread out a
bit from the initial settlements. So your initial objective would be to secure
a secondary star port, with the eventual goal of maneuvering to destroy or
secure the planetary defense site.
> > >You were talking about ARMOURED support above. Generally speaking,
Goddamn. If I grant that the terrain was not terribly suitable to an armored
force (and I don't see why, given unlimited logistical support, a battalion of
light armor wouldn't have been just fine, rather than a lousy 8 light tanks),
it doesn't change the point that logistical limitations limited the Brits to
the same methods and means
as WWI. When they are otherwise capable of fighting modern, high-tech
warfare with the best.
> If having an American carrier group or two working the defenders over
Perhaps not into Port Stanley. But the opposite side of the island wasn't the
only other option.
> Answer: because you (and more importantly, the US high brass) know as
I'm at a bit of a loss of what you're trying to prove.
I never suggested an assault landing directly into the teeth of enemy
defenses.
My initial statement was:
"Far more practical is to use bulk haulers, transport the troops in cold sleep
(assuming there is a safe method of doing that in your universe) and send them
down after that battalion of assault troops has secured an LZ. "
Now, if your enemy has a colony so small that you can take the entire thing
with a single battalion in a single assault, then it really don't matter what
you do, he's screwed regardless. And I was assuming that since you're
unloading bulk haulers, you want some place Really Safe to do that. The
Falklands War was an example of that sort of scenario.
If the entire force was carried in specialized assault vessels you wouldn't
require a decent port to be secure before the downloading process began. The
first few days at Normandy showed that, as did the operations in the Pacific
and the Med.
What I did say was that you would want it in striking distance of your
objective.
Had more dedicated Amphibious assault assets been there (ships, landing craft,
choppers, air support) landing at Port San Carlos would not have been
necessary. There are other places closer to Port Stanley, yet removed from the
immediate Argentine defenses which could have been used.
> >We also would have had more than a handful of helos, and air
Now, SEAD is something we can dedicate aircraft to. Brits had more limited
numbers.:)
But after Atlantic Conveyor went down, the Brits didn't have near as many
choppers as they originally planned for. And I'm sure, given a magic wand to
wave, they would have wanted even more than they planned for.
Ref the various (and ongoing) discussions on orbital assaults.
In case any of you haven't yet (unlikely, but...) I suggest you read almost
anything by David Webber. His "Stars at War" series covers several different
such scenarios, but his other stories also feature them.
If you are interested in his stuff, buy the latest in the Honor Harrington
series, "At all Costs", in hardback; it comes with a CD including almost all
DW's back catalogue in electronic form.
CJ
as an old battletech player, there is nothing worse than a contested drop
zone, there's to much confusion and to many people firing on you as you leave
the ship, when dropping planet side you need a base that can easily be
defended and lets you move unabated, so as to capture key facilities, eg the
power plant, radar, and airfields etc, if you think that you can just drop on
your target and they'll capitulate, then why didn't the allies do this in
world war two,hello Adolph were the 82nd cop this. or in Iraq, because
a,
not enough intelligence b, the enemy can react quicker than you can deploy c,
its to far away from help that can make a difference d, supplies,it's
always better to get them to come to you, then use your ortillery asset's, and
other capabilities to whither the defender's down so that they have to
surrender, remember that if it cost's more in money and lives and property
damage to take a colony the, you could of bought the thing or set up one of
your own for far cheaper than it cost to mount a military campaign, then you
have to defend it.
and as for insurgent type games, remember that a 15yr with a 1000 dollar
black-market rpg 9 can take out a multimillion dollar Abrams tank,
according to the pentagon and janes, or his mate with a sniper rifle can tie
up a company of troops for a couple of hours game of tag, I think that it
comes down to what a person wants in his games and some of the funniest things
can go wrong with a platoon chasing one person all over town, is alot of
enjoyment for some and dam right pain for other's, if you think not alot
happens in this type of game, then remember that the v.c did this sort of
thing to the u.s and did it well, then the Afghanis did it to the Russians,
but they haven't met with the same degree of success this time round with the
Americans, why some could argue tech and that does have a huge effect, and
that they don't have a superpower backing them this time.
at the end of the day this is just a game and a dam fine one at that, you play
what you want and the type of scenario you want, everyone's different, and
always take comments onboard as constructive and try to make the best out of
every game you have.
that's my rant. regards james mitchell.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 11/25/05, R Campbell-Jones <rcj@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
Not very many planetary assaults. He doesn't go for such things, being
primarily interested in vacuum engagements where he can write
about ever-increasing numbers of nuclear missles.
> If you are interested in his stuff, buy the latest in the Honor
At All Costs put me to sleep.
Lets reset that to say "Now I have heard everything from one source on the
internet"
Bob Makowsky
> --- Michael Llaneza <maserati@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
John Atkinson wrote on 11/25/2005 04:54:41 AM:
> On 11/25/05, R Campbell-Jones <rcj@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
But I like ever-increasing numbers of nuclear missles! I'm a vacc-head!
;->=
What you've said is pretty much true, though Crusade gave one a bit. 'We've
the keys to the backdoor' finale is a bit deus ex machina. *shrug*
I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on the guerilla campaigns, but probably
not for this list.
I haven't been able to get into Insurrection.
The other point to remember is this is all stuff based on Starfire. There's
plenty of older version support items available in cutout bins if you want to
mess with the campaign side. Not actual gropos, always promised at some point,
but I think some guidelines for interface.
I'm going to dig out Gorm-Khanate suppliment to see what it has.
> > If you are interested in his stuff, buy the latest in
I'm not a big HH fan myself, heresy to say on this list, and if it's less than
prime HH, At All Costs is probably a miss for me, but the point here was the
CD. The CD's in the past have been good ways to sample bits, dig out sections
if you want to reference in a game, and often interesting artwork.
Baen claims it's a hideous complex plan to lure you into buying the books in
print form; I agree that trying to read 40(?) novels on screen is not my idea
of heaven.
Sadly for the plan, it's not worked in my case, and I've usually gotten the
books with CD's in remainder sales.
The_Beast
> Doug Evans wrote:
IIRC it had some interesting rules for calculating
> John A. wrote:
> >>Couldn't fighters have maneuvered in to smash the damn things?
Two fighters as *close* escort for each transport, yes - plus an unknown
number standing by off-screen ready to intervene in case of need. We see
a lot more Rebel fighters in the hangar and lifting off than we see following
the transports into space.
> >>In my opinion, planetary defenses will be about as common as large
If you had said "...across a space the size of Europe", I would've agreed with
you. Even low orbit is high enough up that you could cover most of France from
ortillery with a single planetary defence centre, though. (Of course aerospace
fighters can dive from orbit outside the PDC umbrella and then approach at low
level, but that forces them down within range of
short-ranged air defences instead.)
> Personally, I think the most interesting scenarios arise in mid-level
Agreed - and until the planetary defense site is secured or destroyed,
ortillery support over the main settlement is likely to be severely curtailed.
Elsewhere, ortillery has a free reign... which most likely means that the
garrison won't even try to defend elsewhere, since doing so
would get them smashed by ortillery :-/
Now, back to the Falklands again:
> >If having an American carrier group or two working the defenders over
Given the weather (stormy) and the nature of the coast on most of the island
(rocky and dangerous to ships), there weren't that many options. The decision
was made mainly by the RN's desire for an anchorage protected from the weather
and reasonably free from navigational hazards; more on this below.
> >Answer: because you (and more importantly, the US high brass) know as
As you'll see below, you *did* suggest just that. Whether or not you
*intended* to do so I have no idea; I can only reply to what you actually
write, not to what you think without putting it into writing.
> My initial statement was:
Let's take a look of what we both actually wrote. In the context of using
heavy armour in the Falklands, I had written:
> Like I said, even if the Brits had been able to put a serious armoured
To which you replied:
> I think after an American carrier group or two worked over the
When you say that the US "would have done precisely as we pleased" in
immediate reply to my saying that I *don't* think the US would've been able
(or at least not stupid enough) to land heavy troops within firing range of
Port Stanley, then you *are* pretty explicitly saying that the US would've
been able to land heavy troops into the teeth of the enemy defences.
To which I disagreed, rethorically pointing out that if you could've done
"exactly as you pleased" in the Falklands (ie., land directly into Stanley)
then why didn't you do so in Iraq where you had a lot more air support
available and a rather less spirited opponent?
Clearer now?
> Had more dedicated Amphibious assault assets been there (ships,
The main alternatives to San Carlos were:
* Cow Bay/Volunteer Beach, from where the land route to Stanley went
over a rather narrow istmus limiting the Brits' manoeuver options. It was also
more exposed to the storms than the others alternatives.
* Port Salvador, which was very well protected from storms but which seems to
have featured a fair number of navigational hazards for ships.
* Goose Green, which was known (or at least strongly suspected; I don't
remember when it was confirmed) to be fairly strongly held by the enemy (and
which anyway was about as far from Stanley as Port San Carlos was).
Flying in troops and supplies from further out at sea would've been very
hazardous due to the weather; thus the desire for a protected anchorage
without too many navigational hazards. Landing craft aren't terribly fond
of stormy seas either, and need relatively gentle coasts to land on - so
even if they had been present, they wouldn't really have opened up any further
options.
> >>We also would have had more than a handful of helos, and air
What would your SEAD aircraft do - wait until one of the MANPADS fired
at a
chopper and then bomb that specific foxhole? Shoulder-launched missiles
don't have a lot of surveillance and tracking radar emissions for SEAD
aircraft to lock on to, particularly not when shooting at helicopters...
helos are are slow enough that the MANPADS don't need early warning from a
radar, particularly not in the open Falklands terrain :-/
> But after Atlantic Conveyor went down, the Brits didn't have near as
Oh, certainly. Even so, I suspect that they'd gone for San Carlos even if
they had had all the choppers they'd wanted - it was still the best (or
"least bad") undefended anchorage available, and with the choppers available
the longer distance to Stanley wouldn't have mattered much.
Regards,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >A "motorized tank platoon" ? Now I've heard everything.Well, if
Judging from the reports published in Armor and various comments made by
tankers around the 'net, the "motorized tank platoons" don't usually have both
tanks *and* M1114s; instead they seem to have *replaced* their tanks
with M1114s - which means that they're not "light or heavy as the
situation requires it", but light only. Considering that the convoy that so
completely failed to reach the Rangers in Mogadishu consisted of HumVees, this
"light only" concept seems a bit... risky.
'Course, the HumVees are a lot more likely to actually start when they're
needed - they're a lot easier to maintain than the Abramses.... and as
long
as they do the job, fine :-/
Regards,
> On 11/25/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> Judging from the reports published in Armor and various comments made
Depends on the unit, of course. I've trained with Dual-purpose
tank/motorized platoons in our Mission Readiness Exercise. I presume
that means at least some of our tankers are also taking their tanks to Iraq.
Not all of them, but some. More than that I can't really say. Each unit is
doing this a bit differently, since we are kind of making up the doctrine as
we go along. When 4th ID went, our tankers were tankers, and didn't much
pretend to be otherwise.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 11/24/05 12:29:24 PM Central Standard Time,
> maserati@speakeasy.net writes:
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> You were talking about ARMOURED support above. Generally speaking,
> HumVees a "motorized tank platoon", so maybe the requirements to
A "motorized tank platoon"? Now I've heard everything.Well, if adding HumVees
to a leg unit makes them motorized then I suppose using them in
an armor role makes the tank platoon motorized too.
But if they can stand up to heavy MG fire, then against anything but real
tanks they can do the armor job. It makes my brain hurt, but I think this is
actually pretty clever.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 11/24/05 12:29:24 PM Central Standard Time,
> maserati@speakeasy.net writes:
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> You were talking about ARMOURED support above. Generally speaking,
> HumVees a "motorized tank platoon", so maybe the requirements to
<snip>
I would like to see your source for this comment. Not that I doubt you as to
it be said I just...doubt the source's IQ.
Gracias,
> On 11/28/05, Warbeads@aol.com <Warbeads@aol.com> wrote:
> > You were talking about ARMOURED support above. Generally speaking,
My Source:
Mission Readiness Exercise conducted Sep-Oct '05, at the Joint
Multinational Readiness Center, Hohenfehls, Germany. My company was
attached to TF Bandit, built around 1-37 AR +/-
We even got a 'dual purpose' platoon (M-1114s and M-1s) cross-attached
to us.
> Glenn wrote:
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
My source: several articles in Armor Magazine over the past year, mostly
ones where "motorized tank" units in Iraq describe how they re-organized
to make the best out of limited assets
(BTW Glenn, your posts are *heavily* formatted. Please re-set to "plain
text" if at all possible!)
Regards,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIf you're the 55th
typewriter repair battalion and you find youself conducting MP operations in
Iraq, your still the 55th typewriter repair
battalion. If you're a tank platoon form 1/2 armored bn and you find
yourself in Iraq driving Hummers on LOC security patrols your still a mech
tank platoon from the 1/2d armored bn. That doesn't mean an M1114 is
considered a "tank" or "tank support".
Heck you've got tankers being used as dismounts. Mission dictates.
> On 11/28/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIf you're the 55th
typewriter repair battalion and you find youself conducting MP operations in
Iraq, your still the 55th typewriter repair battalion.
And chances are good that during your train up for your deployment to a combat
zone you will have (maybe) gone through mount and if real lucky had range week
recently.
OK I'm a cynic.......)
Don
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTrue you'd go
through the necessary trainup but the semantics dictate that you'd still be
the 55th typewriter repair battalion. Two things about this suck. No CIB for
you and more importantly it's back to fixing typewriters when you get to
homestation LOL!
Los
> On 11/28/05, Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTrue you'd go
through the necessary trainup but the semantics dictate that you'd still be
the 55th typewriter repair battalion. Two things about this suck. No CIB for
you and more importantly it's back to fixing typewriters when you get to
homestation LOL!
Los
Yup without 11 bravo brass you can do the job in all it's worse forms and get
none of the accolades. Oh and there is always the chance that you'll be pulled
on a emergency contact team basis to fix some brass hat's typewriter and be
returned just in time for night
patrol.......)
That's 20 years of gunny bunny cynicism for you......)
Don
> Los wrote:
> If you're the 55th typewriter repair battalion and you find youself
> battalion. If you're a tank platoon form 1/2 armored bn and you find
If you're an ex-tank platoon re-equipped with M1114s and both you and
your superiors call you a "motorized tank platoon", what does that make you?
That is the case we're talking about here, after all...
> If you're an ex-tank platoon re-equipped with M1114s and
"Motorized tank" doesn't make sense; perhaps "motorized armored platoon" is
what they meant.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/29/05,
> laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
I think your 'average' 8th-grade educated person would understand "tank"
over "armoured" most days of the week. ;-)
Mk
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 06:28:05AM -0800, laserlight wrote:
> "Motorized tank" doesn't make sense; perhaps "motorized
As with the Royal Navy's term "Warfare Officer", even though one knows the
reason for the specific use of language one does still tend to
wonder what a non-motorised armoured platoon would look like.
R
> laserlight wrote:
De-tanked armoured platoon?
> I think your 'average' 8th-grade educated person would understand
I think you're giving people way too much credit here....
I said:
> > "Motorized tank" doesn't make sense; perhaps "motorized
Indy said
> I think your 'average' 8th-grade educated person would
All tanks are armored, but many armored vehicles are not tanks. AFAIK,
"motorized" means "wheeled vehicles"; if you want to refer to tracked
vehicles, you'd say "mechanized". Also AFAIK, a tank by definition is tracked,
not wheeled, which is why I'd say "motorized tank" is a contradition. I was
wondering if all the source docs are English, or if "motorized tank" might
have been a translation error.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/29/05,
> laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
which is why I'd say "motorized tank" is a contradition.
Which is a point I think Oerjan was trying to [obliquely] make.
B'sides, LL, you're smarter than the average 8th-grade educated person.
Although probably more demented.
Mk
> Laserlight wrote:
> >If you're an ex-tank platoon re-equipped with M1114s and
IMO "motorized armoured platoon" makes even less sense - "motorized
tank" at least has tie virtue of identifying what the platoon used to be
before
it traded in its tanks for lighter vehicles :-/
Out of curiosty, why is this naming convention such a big deal again? I lost
that point somewhere in the thread.
> On 11/29/05, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/05, Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:
You'd be surprised how much training our CSS guys are getting for this
deployment. Cooks and stuff on livefire ranges.
You'd be surprised how much training our CSS guys are getting for this
deployment. Cooks and stuff on livefire ranges.
John
Necessity is the mother of invention isn't it.....) Although cooks on a live
fire range is somehow strangely unsettling to me......guess it's due to eating
what they mask as food.......never mind.....)
Indy said:
> B'sides, LL, you're smarter than the average 8th-grade
"Probably"? Not "unquestionably"? I see I'll have to put a bit more effort
into next Sheep.
Forgive him, I assumed it was his upbringing.
Of course, "unquestionably"! And I say that with deepest admiration; someday
I'll grow up to be JUST like you.
Except with more references to Girls Illustrated...
On the other hand, if you are referring to 9th grade dropouts...
Oh, by the way, isn't this is the time to bring the thread back on topic by
mentioning assaults by dropping sheep from orbit?
The_Beast
Mr. DeBoe wrote on 11/29/2005 11:43:13 AM:
> Indy said:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIs the food really
that bad? When I was in the Navy I heard people complain at the #1rated mess
hall inConUS. They had a professional chef who was a naturalized citizen who
enlisted to "do his part." I couldn't believe the complaints about truly
outstanding food. Shipboard I heard people complain about the Alaskan king
crab legs we had at a holiday meal.
I realize the Navy probably eats better than the ground forces, but after the
grousing I heard I wonder if the only way the military could make people happy
is to bring people's mothers along.
Roger Books
> On 11/29/05, Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:
Oh, by the way, isn't this is the time to bring the thread back on topic by
mentioning assaults by dropping sheep from orbit?
Knew this thread would get flocked up thanks to people like ewe!
;-p
> Of course, "unquestionably"! And I say that with deepest
Bear in mind that not everything that happens at FMA Sheep gets reported.
***Especially*** not the one that Jon Tuffley was at.
> Oh, by the way, isn't this is the time to bring the thread
Didn't we just have a discussion on orbital assault sheeps?
> Oh, by the way, isn't this is the time to bring the thread back on
Quick! What is the terminal velocity of such a critter? Sheared and otherwise.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIs the food really
that bad? When I was in the Navy I heard people complain at the #1rated mess
hall inConUS. They had a professional chef who was a naturalized citizen who
enlisted to "do his part." I couldn't believe the complaints about truly
outstanding food. Shipboard I heard people complain about the Alaskan king
crab legs we had at a holiday meal.
****Holiday meals are also very could in the army, and the food in the mess
hall is also palatable as a rule. It's when it gets sent in the cans out to
the field and the eggs turn a nice shade of
green that it gets iffy.......) And the T-rations are also not that
great as a rule but they'll keep you alive.
I realize the Navy probably eats better than the ground forces, but after the
grousing I heard I wonder if the only way the military could make people happy
is to bring people's mothers along.
****Complaining is just part of the fun, and my mom wouldn't live
in a tent......)
African or European Critter? Laden or unladen?
> On 11/29/05, damosan@comcast.net <damosan@comcast.net> wrote:
> African or European Critter? Laden or unladen?
Lets start with the European version.
They'll he loaded down with assault gear so laden.
Remember to include the ablative cocoon for orbital entry...we don't want 6
tons of mutton chops hitting the ground.
> > Oh, by the way, isn't this is the time to bring the thread back on
Hopefully crispy on the outside and a nice juicy medium within. MMMmmmm
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWe don't? Six tons
of mutton chops sound good to me.
Roger Books
> On 11/29/05, damosan@comcast.net <damosan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:13:35PM -0500, Roger Books wrote:
And the defenders died from fatty degeneration...
R
> > Remember to include the ablative cocoon for orbital
Or a squad of nuns. I understand Beth is still traumatized from that incident
last February.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 11/29/05 7:32:00 AM Central Standard Time,
> oerjan.ariander@telia.com writes:
<snip>
If you're an ex-tank platoon re-equipped with M1114s and both you and
your superiors call you a "motorized tank platoon", what does that make you?
That is the case we're talking about here, after all... <snip>
If the officer says it's a "motorized tank platoon" then it's a "motorized
tank platoon."
Gracias,
Glenn "warbeads"
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 11/29/05 8:45:28 AM Central Standard Time,
> roger@firedrake.org writes:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 06:28:05AM -0800, laserlight wrote:
> "Motorized tank" doesn't make sense; perhaps "motorized
As with the Royal Navy's term "Warfare Officer", even though one knows the
reason for the specific use of language one does still tend to
wonder what a non-motorised armoured platoon would look like.
R
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 11/29/05 9:47:06 AM Central Standard Time,
> laserlight@quixnet.net writes:
<snip> I was wondering if all the source docs are English, or if "motorized
tank" might have been a translation error.
_______________________________________________
<snip>
> From American to...English?
Gracias,
Glenn "warbeads"
> damosan@comcast.net wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIt makes a certain
degree of sense in a way.
If you give foot infantry light motor vehicles they become motorised so if you
give armour light motor vehicles they become motorised too since
they're no longer armoured (in the real sense - kevlar isn't armour
against what tanks chuck at each other, it's just less thin toilet paper).
If it isn't infantry, armour or artillery it must be "motorised" which I
believe has been long been a catch-all definition for almost any vehicle
that wasn't armed with heavy direct fire weapons. I'm sure I've seen WW1
photos of infantry on "motorbikes" classed as motorised.
Like the quote below says though, you are whatever your senior officer says
you are. Just pray he doesn't suddenly start calling you "motorised parachute
marines". I wouldn't like to jump out of a perfectly healthy plane in a 5 ton
lorry!
QUOTE
If the officer says it's a "motorized tank platoon" then it's a "motorized
tank platoon."
Gracias,
Glenn "warbeads"
UNQUOTE
There are people who would complain about the food if their mother was along
on the cruise making it for them and then there are folks who will eat what is
in front of them without comment. Overall we remember the grouches because
they are louder.
Bob Makowsky
> --- Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the food really that bad? When I was in the Navy
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 11/30/05 2:36:51 AM Central Standard Time,
> al.ll@tiscali.co.uk writes:
<snip>
Like the quote below says though, you are whatever your senior officer says
you are. Just pray he doesn't suddenly start calling you "motorised parachute
marines". I wouldn't like to jump out of a perfectly healthy plane in a 5 ton
lorry!
<snip>
I've known officers like that...
Gracias,
Glenn "warbeads"
> Laserlight wrote:
> All tanks are armored, but many armored vehicles are not
"Mechanized" refers to units *transported* in or on tracked vehicles -
usually infantry, but I've seen one or two references to "mechanized
artillery" referring to tracked SP guns. However, tanks are not
"mechanized" - they're "armour" :-/
> Also AFAIK, a tank by definition is tracked, not wheeled,
AFAIK there is no such definition (which is fortunate for us SF fans, since
otherwise our beloved "hover tanks" and "grav tanks" would also be
oxymorons!). A "tank" can be any land-mobile vehicle with
decent-to-heavy
armour ("light tanks" can ignore the armour requirement though), good
terrain mobility and a decent all-purpose gun (although "infantry tanks"
can make do with machineguns). There's no formal requirement that it be
tracked. It's just that so far all vehicles that have met the "good terrain
mobility" requirement have been tracked :-/
> I was wondering if all the source docs are English,
No, they're American...
> or if "motorized tank" might have been a translation error.
Nope. Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were :-/
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIn US Army the
terms "motorized" and "tank" are kind of mutually exclusive. One means a tank
and nothing else, the other means a unit conveyed on a wheeled vehicle.
There's no motorized tank platoon, it's either a tank platoon or a motorized
platoon. A tank platoon could have traded in it's M1s for M114s and still eb
called a tank platoon just like an engineer platoon could be driving supplies
around town and still be called an eng platoon not a transport platoon. And
while we're at it "mechanized confers
tracked status. Probably some mis-reading, or partial reading or partial
retelling of some larger issue is at work here.
Now the Ops sgt could be monkeying around w/ powerpoint briefings and it
could pass through an occisaion HQ not no one notices of cares. During wartime
much decentralization fo OB and equipment and personnel occur form Divs on
down, as forces monkey around with their particular situation to make the best
out of it, doens't mean it's some kind of official DOD sanctioned. One week
after 911 we were completely rewriting large tracts of doctrine to fit our
needs in theater, doesn't mean it stuck back in teh USA but it's how we
operated ourselves.
WIth regard to MREs they're not bad, has good as anything most other armies
use (having tried most menus myself in my day) they're constantly changing the
menus, though eating ANYTHING (even KC BBQ) out of a bag day in and day out
will convince you it sucks, plus the grass always being greener and whatnot.
Don't forget to run all GI comments through a bitch filter before trying to
analyze a statements for sea changes.
Los
> On 11/30/05, Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWIth regard to MREs
they're not bad, has good as anything most other armies use (having tried most
menus myself in my day) they're constantly changing the menus, though eating
ANYTHING (even KC BBQ) out of a bag day in and day out will convince you it
sucks, plus the grass always being greener and whatnot. Don't forget to run
all GI comments through a bitch filter before trying to analyze a statements
for sea changes.
Los
It would also be helpful if people understood when something is said tongue in
cheek.
Don
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Dec 4, 2005, at 2:55 PM, Don M wrote:
> WIth regard to MREs they're not bad...
Collectively they're "not bad" but there are some *real* f'ing bad ones out
there.
<double shudder>
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn the (thankfully
rare) occasions I was subject to a prolonged MRE diet we use to our own curry
powder and live on one mail per section per day. Which,
unsurprisingly, was curry. This was 20+ years ago mind.
CJ
[quoted original message omitted]
> > Or a squad of nuns. I understand Beth is still traumatized
Beth claimed:
> Not traumatised... I don't wake screaming in the night... Anymore ;P
I hear that sufficient therapy does help--"sufficient" apparently
being several pints.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lYou wanna avoid the
ones that look like road apples, you know the solid chunk of meat ones, and
then there's the "frankfurters" no they're not made by Grot and Weigel or
Hummels or Boars Head. You'd think you could roast them on a fire to get sort
of a "hot dog expereince" out of them but actually that doesn't quite pan out
just so.
But the biggest bogosity of MREs is that every one by default doesn't come
with cheese. personally I like to smother whatever is in the MRE with cheese,
just to make it taste...different.
One of my favorite field meals came from the old C rations: Ham and Egg
omlet--Awesome. I saw it replicated in an MRE a few years ago only once,
not too bad.
It should be a given with any soldier in any army of the world at any time
frame from 2000 years ago to 2000 years from now that you will have to want to
supplement your field rations with some little something of your own in order
to personalize it to your likings. Likewise to think that one going to get
Mom's cooking out of a bag is pretty stupid too.
BTW the more heavily involved you are in combat-training operations both
physically and otherwise, the better the chow tastes. (Wlaking 10 hours aday
with 40-100 lbs of crap deoes that to you) But when your back in the
contonement area and they breakout MREs because the mes s hall is only
providing one or two hots a day then it's WTF!!!
> On 12/4/05, R Campbell-Jones <rcj@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 11:56:12AM -0500, Carlos Lourenco wrote:
> It should be a given with any soldier in any army of the world at any
5200BC: first chili pepper domesticated in South America.
5199BC: soldiers start to carry chili to pep up the rations.
R
Actually it probably is more like: 5201 BC soldiers find chili peppers and use
them to pep up their rations
5200 BC Demand for peppers exceeds wild harvesting and domestication of pepper
varieties begins.
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIt's like that with
backpacking meals. While doing a one hundred mile section of the AT we decided
the Beef Stroganoff was wonderful. I'm afriad to try it without 'packing
because I may decide it's nasty and not want to take it along.
I still remember one conversation about how wonderful the fat crystals were in
a meat based spaghetti.
And that's only 30 lb packs and 8 hour days.
Roger Books
> On 12/6/05, Carlos Lourenco <loscon@gmail.com> wrote: